On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 05:03, Micha Silver wrote:
>
> This discussion has raised important issues and clarified concerns from the
> user's perspective. But there is another hurdle that lies between developers
> and users that hasn't been mentioned yet (not in this thread, anyway):
> packaging.
>
This discussion has raised important issues and clarified
concerns from the user's perspective. But there is another hurdle
that lies between developers and users that hasn't been mentioned
yet (not in this thread, anyway): packaging.
Different packagers
Hi everyone,
I'm not a QGIS developer but I've been a user since 1.X days. Aside from a
few quirks (e.g. dependency issues on Linux), I've always liked the QGIS
release cycle so I'm coming from that perspective.
To add to Alexandre's explanation, this is usually how I explain QGIS
releases:
There
Hi Groene,
I agree that the Road map is not easy to understand. Just to clarify things
(I hope):
The current LTR is 3.10 (currently at 3.10.3). It only became LTR in
February although its first release was done in october (3.10.0). The idea
is to let it mature (and have a broader usage and tests)
Hi Chris,
I share most of your concerns, as much as I advocate the spread of QGIS in
enterprise and organisations.
It is true we need always more reliability, documentation. I'd like also
to point that 2.x is not so far away, and that the reliability have since
improved by order of magnitude.
Let'
